My goal is to inform potential law school students and applicants of the ugly realities of attending law school. DO NOT ATTEND UNLESS: (1) YOU GET INTO A TOP 8 LAW SCHOOL ON SCHOLARSHIP; (2) YOU GET A FULL-TUITION SCHOLARSHIP TO ATTEND; (3) YOU HAVE EMPLOYMENT AS AN ATTORNEY SECURED THROUGH A RELATIVE OR CLOSE FRIEND; OR (4) YOU ARE FULLY AWARE BEFOREHAND THAT YOUR HUGE INVESTMENT IN TIME, ENERGY, AND MONEY DOES NOT, IN ANY WAY, GUARANTEE A JOB AS AN ATTORNEY OR IN THE LEGAL INDUSTRY.

On May 31, 2012, Lawrence Lessig published an article for the Atlantic. The post was entitled “A Message to Law Grads: Instead of Corporations, Help Ordinary People.” Apparently, he was so proud of his commencement address to Atlanta's John Marshall Law School’s Class of 2012, he needed to print the talk to a wider audience.

“My point is not to criticize Inc. Law. It helps create wealth; it helps protect wealth. It gives great innovators a chance to bring their innovations to market.

Instead my point is to emphasize the importance of the other part of law. Not the "Inc." part, but the part that touches real people with real problems. It's the part that keeps a family in their home against an unjust demand for eviction. Or enforces a simple contract with a bank, to supply the credit for a coffee shop. Or protects a woman against her abusive husband. Or forces an insurance company to pay on a claim it rightly owes. Or defends a child in a foster home against the neglect of a distracted state.” [Emphasis mine]

Try representing the downtrodden, when you owe - on average - $138,819 in additional NON-DISCHARGEABLE student debt – after graduating from this fourth tier dung pit, Ass-Clown!! When you owe a mortgage that you cannot walk away from, bitch, you cannot afford to help abused housewives with $40.16 in the bank.

Later on, this cretin continued:

“When you practice this law of real people, when you experience the way the law fails real people, when you see that the only medicine that you have to prescribe -- bloodletting -- helps no one except the vampires, recognize this:

There is no one who could justify the system we've allowed to evolve. There is no one who could defend its failures.”

I’ll bet that this cockroach can contrive a defense of the indefensible law school scam. But the “professors” should not be held accountable for not teaching their students how to practice law – even after charging them artificially high prices – right?!?!

Lawrence Lessig is the Roy L. Furman Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, and Director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University. Prior to rejoining the Harvard faculty, Lessig was a professor at Stanford Law School, where he founded the school's Center for Internet and Society, and at the University of Chicago. He clerked for JudgeRichard Posner on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and Justice Antonin Scalia on the United States Supreme Court.”

After reading this bio, you may be wondering, “Where is Le$$ig’s extensive experience in working in real law, as it affects average people?” After all, the academic hustler lists In$titutional Ethic$ among his “research interests.” Since this data was a little vague, I decided to look up the rodent’s curriculum vitae.

In fact, this academic leech has precious little legal experience. Lessig graduated from Yale Law School in 1989 – after earning an MA in Philosophy from Trinity College at Cambridge University in 1986 and Bachelor’s degrees in Economics and Management from the University of Pennsylvania in 1983. Scroll down and you will see that this pinhead then clerked for Richard “the Pig” Posner from 1989-1990 before wiping Antonin Scalia’s rotund ass from 1990-1991.

At this point, Lawrence Lessig immediately returned to the womb, i.e. the safe confines of academia. The scaly bastard couldn’t wait to return. As such, he became an “assistant professor of law” at the University of Chicago - in 1991. He has been a columnist, academic “fellow” and “professor” since that time.

President and Fellows of Harvard College, i.e. Taxpayer ID No. 04-2103580, is a powerful and large corporation. On page 1 of this 2010 Form 990, line 22, you will notice thatthe school had $30,748,869,000 in end of year net assets – as of June 30, 2010. The “non-profit” held an estimated $47,086,364,000 in total assets, but that figure was countered by $16,337,495,000 in total liabilities. Lawrence, what the hell were you talking about, when you lectured those poor, debt-strapped TTTT students to help ordinary people?!?!

If you want to listen to the beady-eyed snake with the bulbous forehead, then click on the link above. In this clip, Douche-bag Lawrence Lessig blathers/pontificates on copyright law's impact on creativity.

Conclusion: In the end, Lawrence Lessig is simply another academic pig who does not appreciate the extent of the damage that his industry has inflicted on legions of young Americans. Then again, he has taught at elite law schools. While HLS students have the choice whether to work in corporate law or family matters, this DOES NOT APPLY to TTTT law schools. Pull your massive head out of your ass for one second, and take a look at the world from the perspective of recent graduates, Lawrence.

58 comments:

Nando, this clueless pile of rat droppings also fails to understand that there are hordes of newly minted attorneys baying for the chance to work for free to help poor people but new attorneys need training, and the legal aid organizations can only take in so many volunteers. I volunteered at all the legal aid societies in Chicago in 2008-2009 and found only one that was willing to let me help, and only on a couple of simple chapter 7s. The guy told me they had 30 volunteers for each part-time volunteer position.It;s not like these toilets taught us how to practice the nuts and bolts of law, and I was not going to risk my shingle without at least a little help and malpractice insurance.

I love Lessig's work on copyright, but this lecture is pretty fucking offensive. A prestige-whore elitist working for a corporate empire tells impoverished people whose opportunity has been stripped to work for poor people that the large corporations his place is in bed with are screwing?

Yikes. Poor in taste. Why not call on government to provide funding for representation, since fee-shifting doesn't work? Why not call on law schools to slash tuition so that new graduates have more capital to start up firms and take pro bono matters? Why not call on the judicial system to be more generous with waiving costs for poor defendants? Why not call on Congress to be more generous with loan forgiveness for people who represent indigents, like allow them to submit unpaid billing invoices in lieu of loan payments?

LOL. Lessig is hilarious. Anecdotally, I have a friend who graduated Order of the Coif from our first tier law school last year. Said law school is widely regarded as the best in the region. All she wanted to do was work in indigent criminal defense, preferably in the city where we went to school (and, again, our school is "best" in the region, and certainly in the city). No jobs. She tried applying in other cities. No jobs. Ended up happy enough in a small firm job out of state. It's really not all that easy to help the "ordinary people" anymore.

Actually, the resume that Nando described sounds very impressive to me. And as we know, someone coming out of a SCOTUS clerkship would've had his pick of follow-on jobs.

Lessig isn't the first person I've heard this "advice" from. I'm sorry to say it, but there's a reason why you can't survive by helping the disadvantaged: the disadvantaged in this country have been conditioned to expect things like legal services (and health care) for FREE. This isn't about law grads "selfishly " holding out for six-figure salaries - they can't survive indefinitely if they work for FREE.

And that would be true even for the grads who are lucky enough to be without student loan debt...

I don't see assclowns like Lessig and his ilk donating their time to defend and represent the downtrodden. No, instead they spend time on the internet while their research assitants collect articles so that the prof can write an esoteric law review article that no one will care about. This putrid rodent is a hypocrite of a tall order.

Poor people expect services for free. When people (even middle class people) find out I'm a lawyer they immediately want free legal advice. This dickhead's lecture may have been okay if given at YHS but nowhere else.

One question for the egghead: why is okay for the schools to charge $40K in yearly tuition but not okay for the recent grad to try and make enough money to repay that debt?

The only thing that is not below ordinary about John Marshall Law School is the tuition the school charges. In defense of Lessig, a graduation speech named "YOUR LAW SCHOOL IS A JOKE" probably would have not been received well.

Now, is it just me or does anyone else notice most of the elite snobs have no chin, snake eyes, a bulbous forehead and a tiny nose? A typical rodent has a stronger, more prominent chin. Shit, this guy even has the big floppy ears. Quit inbreeding, assholes! It's like when the Hapsburg empire was run by chinless fools.

One aspect of the LAWPOCALYPSE that still flies under the radar is the contribution to the misery by the most "elite" grads of "elite" schools, like Lessig, who take cushy "academic" sinecures at schools that have no business existing in the first place. Many TTT/TTTTs have HYS grads or other "Order of the Coif" types on the faculty - this creates the image of "prestige" and makes it all the easier to dupe hapless 0Ls into believing a degree from one of these dumps must be worth something. Good job, Nando. More of these swine need to be outed. They have blood - or, pigshit - on their hands.

I know it's already been stated in the comments above, but this guy sounds like an idiot savant. How else could he have so many academic credentials on his resume, and yet posit the laughable idea that law grads, many of whom are six figures in debt, should work for people who cannot pay them? There's a reason why most people do tenant side eviction cases and domestic abuse restraining orders on a pro bono basis. Numb nuts.

I know it's already been stated in the comments above, but this guy sounds like an idiot savant. How else could he have so many academic credentials on his resume, and yet posit the laughable idea that law grads, many of whom are six figures in debt, should work for people who cannot pay them?

This creep has been snug in the cocoon of higher education, as a student or a teacher, since 1979--except for two years of prestigious judicial clerking, which is the closest thing to a cocoon that the legal profession has to offer. Maybe that is why his speech sounds like it comes from a different time--like the 1970s, when the legal sector was growing, and law grads could still choose between the path of ideals and the path of wealth.

Nowadays, NEITHER is available. If a recent bar admittee shows up on the doorstep of a public defender or a legal aid office, soul brimming with high ideals, the office will show him or her stacks of hundreds of applications from other recent admittees. That is if the office is hiring, which it rarely is.

Lessig gave that speech to the wrong audience. He should have addressed recent retirees, with their pensions and vast experience, rather than grads who are massively indebted and clueless about how to practice law (thanks to law professors who wouldn't know a courtroom from a faculty lounge). It irritates me how many healthy and successful 60-70 year olds, after retiring, let their bar membership lapse and never do volunteer legal work.

What a disgusting looking troglodyte. Is this guy related to Charles Darwin? Darwin believed his survival of the fittest theory so much that he tried to extend his dynasty through inbreeding. This "professor" looks deformed and his words are horrendously misplaced, much like everything in his face (e.g., eyes, nose, hair, ears, etc.).

I bet this douchebag "professor" doesn't do any pro bono work. No, he would rather hire students to do research and writing that he will take credit for on some lame published law review article that no one outside his family and friends will give a fuck about. This motherfucker epitomizes hypocrisy. OLs should take notice that "professors" such as this prick live the good life off of their student loan dollars and they could give a rat's fuck about you or your future.

How much in legal services do poor people actually need? There is a connection between poverty and crime, so presumably "poor" people would need more access to criminal lawyers than others, but those services are provided by the state if needed. It seems to me that teachers and doctors would be much more helpful and necessary in helping disadvantaged people. All these elitist lawyers live in this world where they try to justify their existence by advocating the need for other lawyers to act as champions of the downtrodden. Of course, this turd couldn't respond to a complaint, so he would be useless as an advocate for those people he so ardently wants other people to help. Meanwhile, all his Harvard law students and rushing off to their new offices at Sullivan and Cromwell and Ropes and Gray.

Lessig is trying to make something that is completely useless still sound like it has worth.

What he should be recommending is for the victims of the LS scam to forget about 3 wasted years and to start life over again from kindergarden and in an entirely different line of work.

http://www.bls.gov/k12/azlist.htm

That is, if it is not too late for them given the severe six figure debt financial handicap.

**It is also worth repeating that the JD on the resume is highly problematic for non legal employers, and that one will have to decide whether or not to even mention it, or to make something up about what one was doing for the 3 years of time in law school.

It is optimistic and hopeful to think that, in a general sense, one can do anything he or she wants to do in life, but telling someone that "You can do anything with a law degree" is not really true.

As many of you will discover, and I know this is all redundant (but worth repeating) the JD will close more doors than it will open.

A personnel dept will see you as:

1. A possible flight risk if a law job comes along.

2. One who is socially inept and could not make it in law.

3. A lawyer, which you are, and many people do not like lawyers.

And so on.

And that is the practical word from the streets and not the out of touch (however well intentioned) sentiments of an anchorite at the University.

Lawrence Lessig wants others to do works that he is NOT willing or able to perform. On the hilarious blog "The Secret Diary of Steve Jobs," the author ripped into this academic cockroach - in a post entitled "Eat my ass, Lawrence Lessig." Here is the entire text:

http://www.fakesteve.net/2006/11/eat-my-ass-lawrence-lessig.html

"As long as I’m ranting about My Little Pony and this notion of open source, there’s something else I want to get off my chest. It’s Larry Lessig of Stanford Law School. This douchebag is always going around telling everyone should give away their stuff for free and talking smack about Apple for using DRM. Check out this article just for one example of him bitching about Apple’s operating system not being free. Dude, tell you what. You go write a friggin operating system as good as OS X, and you give it away free and let anyone frig with it however they want. Okay? You do that, and then we’ll talk. Right. Let me know how that works out. I’ll sit here holding my breath.

Riddle me this: Is it not ironic that a “radical” like Larry Lessig, who devotes himself to telling other people to give away their work for free, is himself employed (and handsomely paid) by the ultimate example of an organization that profits by roping off intellectual property and forcing people to pay exorbitant fees to get access to it? Try walking into one of the libraries at Stanford to borrow a book. See what happens.

If Larry really believed what he said (ie if he wasn’t just a guy who wants an excuse to steal other people’s work and dress this thievery up as some noble cause) he would be railing against his own employer. Why doesn’t Stanford “open source” all of its courses and make them available at no cost over the Internet, and let people earn degrees without paying tuition? Wouldn’t that make the world a better place, if we had all these highly educated people running around? Isn’t it “immoral” and “unethical” for Stanford to be hoarding its intellectual property instead of sharing it with the “community”?

In the final analysis, Lessig is an academic leech who wants others to engage in work that he refuses to do himself. By their works, ye shall know them. He now works for a private, “non-profit” corporation with more than $30 billion in total assets. Harvard is certainly not going to give away its course material online.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/3/26/tuition-costs-jump-up/

In fact, on March 26, 2012, Radhika Jain and Kevin J. Wu of the Harvard Crimson published an article headlined “Undergraduate Costs Will Reach $54,496.” While the school does provide need-based aid to many students, it is certainly not providing its courses online, at no charge.

This is sad to read. Still, lemmings who go into law school now with the mountain of information out there deserve their misery. There are so many stories of administrator greed and brokeass students driving 2 hrs back and forth to volunteer.

9:07: Your comment is spot-on! It seems like elitists of all kinds are stuck in the 1970's or 1980's, whether or not they were even born by those decades.

Professor Lessig reminds me of the minister who, during WWI, gave a sermon about the importance of tithing to soldiers who'd been slogging in the trenches and saw their buddies shot and gassed to death. If I remember correctly, I read about that minister in Robert Graves' "Goodbye To All That."

I volunteered my services after graduating from U of Illinois in 2008. And that was before the school admitted it lied about GPAs and LSAT scores. Guess what, fuckhead? No legal aid providers in Cook County (or anywhere else in the state for that matter) needed my services. Now I work in real estate, which is another slimy profession. But at least you can do this work without taking on $100K in debt.

"But as I watched him grow through his years at this law school, I recognized that my skepticism was wrong. Never more than the day when he told me that he was thinking of simply hanging up a shingle after he left Atlanta's John Marshall Law School and practicing the law of real people." --Lessig on his nephew.

I'll bet Lessig is proud of that scammy phrase that he made up--"the law of real people."

Well, most "real people" in serious legal trouble (other than indigents who get court-appointed lawyers) know enough to hire an experienced lawyer rather than a recent bar admittee who has near-zero practical experience, near-zero training, and near-zero local contacts.

To the extent that Lessig's nephew is able to attract clients by "simply hanging up a shingle," he is doing them no favors-- however cut-rate his legal fees. Without training--which law schools do not provide-- a young grad who goes into practice will contaminate everything he touches, and will be a magnet for bar complaints.

I never understood why the poor classes, who tended to have better genes and strength than the rich inbreds from working in manual labor positions, didn't just revolt. I am always shocked to see how many of the wealthy people throughout history look like they could break. Sure, they may have money, but the reality is they are feeble and would easily break into pieces if they were challenged.

2012 grad here from a much nicer institution that this for-profit ATL shithole.

If anyone wants to offer me a 5-year contract to represent the rights of the indigent for 30k a year, I will sign instantly. Legal aid, PD's office, whatever. I'll sign. That's basically my living expenses plus my debt service. No cars, TVs, boats, or fine dining, and definitely no savings for a 401k at compound interest. Just basic living and representing poor people. Would sign it yesterday.

The Univer$ity of Chicago, i.e. Taxpayer ID No. 36-2177139, had $5,137,642,000 in total NET ASSETS – as of June 30, 2010. The school’s end of year total assets reached $8,525,434,000, and this massive figure was countered by $3,387,792,000 in end of year total liabilities.

Lessig was also a “visiting professor of law” at Yale Law School, for Spring Term 1995. Do you see a pattern yet?!

Take a look at Yale University’s 2010 IRS Form 990. The school operates under Employer ID No. 06-0646973, and the tax year ended on June 30, 2010. You will see that the “institution of higher learning” owned $17,260,240,441 in end of year NET ASSETS. The private, supposed “non-profit” corporation held $24,776,355,904 in end of year total assets – while facing $7,516,115,463 in end of year total liabilities.

Ass-Clown then taught at Harvard Law School from 1997-2000. He recently returned to Harvard in late 2008.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2008/12/12_lessig.html

Based on this press release, Bulbous Forehead joined the Stanford faculty in 2000.

Check out the 2010 Form 990 for Stanford University Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, i.e. Tax ID No. 94-1156365.

On line 20 of page 1, you will note that this "non-profit" had $24,553,320,653 in end of year total assets - for the tax year ending on August 31, 2010. The university also held $5,118,398,161 in total liabilities. As such, the total net assets of Leland Stanford Junior University were $19,434,922,492 - for the same tax year.

How many tax-free corporations with net assets exceeding $19 BILLION do you think qualify as "serving the people"?! So much for Lawrence Le$$ig working for the people, huh?!?! Isn’t it wonderful that all of these HIGHLY PROFITABLE, private business enterprises – masquerading as “non-profit academic institutions” – do not pay taxes?!?!

For the shills: I recognize that Dung Beetle Lawrence Lessig did not teach at all of these four corporations simultaneously. However, consider this: in the 2010 tax year, these four private universities collectively held $70,831,823,933 in LISTED END-OF-YEAR NET ASSETS!!

Imagine any other business industry - aside from the organized religion racket - that could get away with this criminal behavior. These pig institutions do not pay taxes to their local cities! In essence, they are not only stealing from their customers and taxpayers; they are also robbing local and state governments of funds, such as property tax revenue.

Let’s put this massive theft into perspective. Out of 184 countries listed in the International Monetary Fund, only 63 nations have a GDP – listed in U.S. dollars – that exceeds $70,831,823,933. Head to the link above, and select All countries; Gross domestic product, current prices in USD; and then Date range from 2011 to 2011.

The following 121 nations each had less in GDP-USD in 2011 than these four “non-profit” U.S. universities’ collective net worth in summer 2010:

Mother fucker, if I hear one more fucking graduation speech given by some entitled, wealthy, "successful" (thief) baby boomer, telling me that I not only should "deal with it", but also that the game has changed and I should expect far less, I'm going to vomit.

I hate it when smug, cloistered assholes like this guy talk about helping "real people." I hate it because I know damned well that this guy has not a clue about the "real people" he wants everyone else to help. How much contact has Lessig had with "real people"? Probably none.

If Lessig was in a situation where he had to interact with the "real people" whose needs he champions, he'd probably be quick to call 911 to get the "real people" away from him.

To Lessig (and other elitists), real people are things that exist in the abstract only. He can go on at length about helping them because he is never going to be one of them, nor is he ever going to have to actually interact with them outside of his own comfort and safety zone. No one who is one of the "real people" Lessig talks about, or who has worked with "real people" would ever feel the need to talk about "real people" in the way Lessig did.

Lessig had to say something to the assembled graduates. He couldn't be honest and say, "Hey, the good news is, America has many international airports that have planes that can take you to places where Sallie Mae can't bother you. Bad news is, you all are screwed." He couldn't talk about Biglaw, because that isn't going to be happening for TTTT grads. So he decided to split the difference and deliver a speech full of pablum about "real people." Which is just great because he was telling TTTT grads who probably already ARE the "real people" he has such strong feelings for to help the "real people," even though these grads will have so much law school debt that they will never be able to help any "real people." Instead, within a few years, these grads will become permanently anchored to "real people" status by their insurmountable debt load, and will be looking for help with all the other "real people."

Lessig reminds me of the title character of the film "Barton Fink" in a way. Maybe someone can show him the life of the mind.

PSU PROF. GARY S. GILDIN JOINS SANDUSKY DEFENSE?On the morning of June 12th, 2012, on CNN's Starting Point (hosted that morning by Christine Romans, not Soledad O'Brien), the field correspondent Susan Candiotti was sent to Bellafonte, PA, for Day Two of the Sandusky hearing. Candiotti showed footage of standing outside the Sandusky home late on Day One, while Sandusky was returning home in a black BMW-330. Sandusky entered the home followed by a tall, slender and lanky gentleman, accompanied by a short, neebish Jewess, a kind of "Joy Behar"-looking woman, right behind him. These are two people who I would recognize anywhere, since I saw them almost on a daily basis for three years: The Gildins.

The question might be raised as to why PSU would seek to bring Gary S. Gildin into this matter? Reason number one relates to the increasing probability that the Sandusky matter reaches up to the highest levels at Penn State. In a recent response filed by Penna. AG Linda Kelly to Gary Schultz's motion to quash, Kelly refers to a "secret file" maintained by the Penn State VP on Sandusky which contains emails among Schultz, Curley, and "other persons." Such as? Second, excepting Schultz himself (who hired credible Andy Petite defense lawyer Thomas Ferrell, NYU L'86, from Pittsburgh), no one in the Sandusky mess to date has retained anyone with even the most remote chance of obtaining an acquittal. In fact, Rominger is Gildin's former student. Having attended law school with Rominger, I would only quote from Richard Pryor when he first met Ronald Reagan in describing Sandusky's likely future: "We's in trouble."

It appears that PSU is now busy in the process of assembling their own in-house dream team in which Coach Gildin will be brought into supervise Bob Kardashian (Rominger), Bob Shapiro (Joe Amendola) and Caroline Roberto (counsel for Curley).

The solution when things get real shitty, i.e., when it looks like the real vested interests in a 1.6 billion dollar endowed corporation (sic) might be at stake, bring in a guy who's already on your team in the first place, viz., who ATLA endowed with a chair and who's actually argued before SCOTUS. Gildin is famous for his moralizing. Most of his sermons were about legal ethics, e.g., "the right to counsel does not imply the right to commit perjury." One might suggest that the right to counsel in this case seems to imply the right to ass rape 83 minors. It appears to me that Gildin is actually being brought into Commonwealth v. Sandusky as a secret sideline coach. As I have asserted above, he may indeed be if his presence on the Sandusky property is any indication. And what other reason would he have to be there?

Years ago, I attended a kindler gentler 6 billion dollar institution which quipped "Laws without Morals are in Vain" from which I wished I had never left. There are few lawyers who actually follow such platitudes anymore, being compelled by the market mechanism in our depression era economy.

One of those few, Wm. C. Costopoulos of Harrisburg, was approached by this band of Brechtian big shots from Happy Valley and turned them down, reportedly pointing to that one curious part of the ABA MR-MC permitting attorney withdrawal, that part of the code which no one ever seems to care about anymore, but seems particularly relevant here:

I do not have access to this pig’s salary. According to the Form 990 for Harvard, Lessig is not among the “non-profit” corporation’s highest-paid employees.

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11992

Here is Cockroach Lawrence Lessig, promoting his book on The Charlie Rose Show. Warning: this boring-ass segment is 19:31 in length. Apparently, this genius has discovered that serious political contributions corrupt Congress. Good job, Lawrence. I was wondering when someone would reach this conclusion.

Check out this quote from Forehead, at the 1:19 mark:

“Um, well, you know, I, I mean, I’ve been on your show many times talking about these issues. Of, uh, intellectual property, and the way to think about how to balance this. And what I found was, in the world, people were getting the issue. Parents and teachers, educators, uh, businesses. They were getting the issue. There was no progress among policymakers.

And, and it hit me, you know, one of those moments when you realize you’re not as smart as you thought you were, ‘cause it’s so obvious, that we weren’t gonna make any progress on this issue until we made progress on a more fundamental issue, which is the fundamental issue about the way money influences the political process. And it wasn’t just about esoteric issues like copyright. It was about some of the most fundamental issues like global warming or health care. Or, on the right, simplified tax systems or the size of government. These were all issues where if you get to the root, the root here is the way money blocks the ability to make reform. And so I figured, you know, I had ten years on that project. I thought “every year, an academic should throw, every ten years an academic should throw away all his intellectual capital and move on.” So that’s what I decided to do.”

Very eloquent, huh?!?! I wonder how much Harvard pays this bumbling, stuttering, aloof pinhead. This longwinded bastard displays a trait common to academic leeches: the ability to utter a lengthy response, without providing much of an answer. I laughed when this ass-monkey showed a sense of surprise that people in the real world understand issues – and that policy-heads do not make much progress on those same concerns.

Of course that is the case, moron! Did this swine just come out of the womb?!?! I realize that his gigantic forehead resembles that of a fetus at 12 weeks. Although, I am not sure that a mother elephant could squeeze such a large head out of its birth canal.

Objective

This blog is maintained by a graduate of a third tier law school. My goal is to educate prospective law students about the perils of obtaining a legal education. There are many pitfalls - the debt load, the oversupply of lawyers, the fact that there are not enough legal jobs to satisfy nearly 45,000 annual law graduates, and the reality that the majority of law school graduates will end up with low-paying jobs upon completion of their "legal studies."